- Novartis International AG vs Union of India
Novartis International AG, a Swiss pharmaceutical giant, declined a patent for them to introduce a cancer drug known as Glivec. Our Country India was and still is a developing country and decided to join the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 1995 to start providing patents. It was noticed that a patent had been previously given to an ingredient called “imatinib”, which is an integral component of the drug Glivec. If the law had given the drug its patent, then it would have given its patent to an “incremental innovation” rather than a “novelty drug”. The Patents Act, 1970, introduced a provision in the Act that prohibited such innovation to receive a patent. The decision of the High Court was challenged in the Supreme Court, and they accused the company of “unconstitutional patent violations” and refused to grant them a patent.
- Bajaj Auto Limited vs. TVS Motor Company Limited
Bajaj Auto Ltd. filed a suit against TVS Motors Pvt. Ltd. under the Patents Act, alleging infringement of its patent pertaining to dual spark plug engine technology in motor vehicles before a single bench of the Madras High Court. The appellant sought a permanent injunction against the respondent for infringement of monopoly rights under the Indian Patents Act, 1973. During the pendency of the case, the appellants applied for an interim injunction against the respondents, preventing them from infringing on the appellant’s patents. The Bench issued an interim injunction prohibiting the respondents from infringing on the appellant’s patent and, as a result, from launching a lawsuit. Furthermore, it was claimed that the defendant had committed no patent infringement and that they were suffering a slew of penalties and threats as a result of the delay in the introduction of the TVS Flame motorcycle. The Madras High Court concluded that the appellant has been manufacturing products with the patent technology for 5 years. The defendant made an appeal to the Supreme Court and later, the appeal was dismissed.
- Bayer Corporation v. Union of India & Ors.
The Indian Patent Office granted Bayer Corporation a patent for their medicine ‘Sorafenib Tosylate,’ which is used to treat liver and kidney cancer. In 2012, the Drug Controller of India (Defendants) issued Natco Pharma the first-ever Compulsory License to create a generic version of this drug. Plaintiff was selling the medicine for Rs. 2,80,000 each month for a course, whereas Defendant claimed to supply it for just Rs. 8,800. Plaintiff was aggrieved by the fact that Natco was given a Compulsory License and requested a stay from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), claiming that the License issued by the Drug Controller of India was unlawful. The High Court of Delhi emphasized that the patent relationship would harm India’s public health policy. It went on to say that a drug’s approval for sale does not constitute patent infringement. As a result, patent infringement cannot be assumed; it must be proven in a court of law. The Court further held that the Drug Authorities have no control over such decisions.
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at firstname.lastname@example.org